Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release

[Horton]

I see. So, Sean’s unnamed sources might or might not be reliable, but he’s allowed to go on Fox News and talk about what these unnamed sources tell him. But when Fox News talks about unnamed sources in an article then it’s a fact because this is being held to a Fox News journalistic standard that Fox News doesn’t hold Sean Hannity to. And, later, if Sean Hannity’s unnamed sources cause Rep. Issa to call for charges against Secretary Clinton, that’ll be news, so Fox News will report that, but whether or not Rep. Issa’s views were swayed by sources that may or may not be reliable comes out no where in the article.

It seems like it just is easier to assume that it’s unreliable, but I guess if it tells someone what they want to hear, they might take it for fact and make weird delineations about when we can treat what’s on the channel as fact and when we cannot.

As pointed out earlier all news shows, Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC report the news AND have those who give their opinion or commentary of the news.

The FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s email issue. That is a fact and is news.

What may or may not come of the investigation is opinion and many news agencies have offered commentary about their opinion.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hillary is squarely responsible for the position she finds herself in. She’s not a victim, thats a fairy tale, its not a conspiracy thats a fairy tale. Its no one elses fault, thats a fairy tale. Hillary is responsible for the position she finds herself in and thats the bottom line. Most adults I know take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming their faults and error on others.

Everyone alive, and some who are dead, is responsible for the position they find themselves in. Nothing new there. But God has warned us not to judge, lest we be so judged, and where Clinton is concerned, we don’t even have all the facts, even if we hadn’t been warned not to judge.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thats not a one way street either and we are talking specifically HIllary nor relativism of everyone.

So let me just repeat…

Hillary is squarely responsible for the position she finds herself in. She’s not a victim, thats a fairy tale, its not a conspiracy thats a fairy tale. Its no one elses fault, thats a fairy tale. Hillary is responsible for the position she finds herself in and thats the bottom line. Most adults I know take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming their faults and error on others.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thats not a one way street either and we are talking specifically HIllary nor relativism of everyone.

So let me just repeat…

If she is not criminally liable or if the FBI is not readying a recommendation of charges, then she is, indeed, a victim of wrong judgment without the facts and malicious gossip.

We are in no position to judge her, and even if we did have all the facts, we have been commanded by God not to judge. It’s that simple. We can judge an action, once we have full details of that action, but we can never judge a person, not even if we sit on a jury. In that case we judge the criminality of the action, but never the person. Moral Theology 101, and I teach Moral Theology 505. At least for this semester. I don’t normally teach it. I usually am confined to Christology classes. Just want to be clear on that and not misleading.

 

[Crossbones]

As pointed out earlier all news shows, Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC report the news AND have those who give their opinion or commentary of the news.

The FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s email issue. That is a fact and is news.

What may or may not come of the investigation is opinion and many news agencies have offered commentary about their opinion.

The difference isn’t that Sean Hannity is giving an opinion, but that he is stating that sources tell him that Secretary Clinton will be indicted. That isn’t being presented as an opinion (I think she should be indicted), but as a fact (sources tell me she is about to be indicted). This fact (as presented on Fox News) causes Representative Issa to make a comment on the story, which is picked up on Fox News, who does not tell the readers of the article where Representative Issa got information to state this view.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If she is not criminally liable or if the FBI is not readying a recommendation of charges, then she is, indeed, a victim of wrong judgment without the facts and malicious gossip.

The only gossip I hear is about Fox. I don’t see any point that you have. In fact you have a double standard. She is under investigation and used an unsecured server and placed herself in this position. Sorry its like that.

We are in no position to judge her, and even if we did have all the facts, we have been commanded by God not to judge. It’s that simple. We can judge an action, once we have full details of that action, but we can never judge a person, not even if we sit on a jury. In that case we judge the criminality of the action, but never the person. Moral Theology 101, and I teach Moral Theology 505.

Sounds like a thread for elsewhere her integrity is in question bottom line;

catholicbible101.com/judgenot.htm

 

[Crossbones]

I think there is a difference between Sean not being credible, and Sean’s information not being credible.

Sean does a lot of editorial work. And editorial work is opinion work; that does not invalidate what is said, but simply indicates that it emphasizes a point of view.

Sean would not last in his job if he did not have an actual individual making the statements which Sean reported. That does not mean that the individual was stating a fact; they may have been, or they may have been stating an opinion based on facts they knew. In either event, to continue on a national news program anyone using information from sources they cannot reveal will either continue to use those sources if the sources prove reliable, or drop them if the sources prove unreliable.

The reliability of the sources - used by both sides of the political spectrum - are generally people who are in a position to have access to information which has not been publicly announced. Many if not most sources have an agenda,which may color the information they give; but if they give false information, they won’t find many listeners further on.

I’m not sure that Sean wouldn’t last in his job if he was using unreliable sources. Conservative pundits have remarkable survival skills as Bill O’Reilly was accused of sexual harassment (which he swore he would fight all the way, but then when it seemed his accuser had tapes, he suddenly settled). Rush Limbaugh has addiction issues and had Viagra upon returning from a foreign trip. Sean using questionable or unreliable sources would be a lesser offense than these issues.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Don’t see any other point but this one, made for pages of boring reading about fiction and myth, speculation and conjectured etc. But the bottom line, still this…

Hillary is squarely responsible for the position she finds herself in. She’s not a victim, thats a fairy tale, its not a conspiracy thats a fairy tale. Its no one elses fault, thats a fairy tale. Hillary is responsible for the position she finds herself in and thats the bottom line. Most adults I know take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming their faults and error on others.

Thanks.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m not sure that Sean wouldn’t last in his job if he was using unreliable sources. Conservative pundits have remarkable survival skills as Bill O’Reilly was accused of sexual harassment (which he swore he would fight all the way, but then when it seemed his accuser had tapes, he suddenly settled). Rush Limbaugh has addiction issues and had Viagra upon returning from a foreign trip. Sean using questionable or unreliable sources would be a lesser offense than these issues.

As long as his unreliable sources went against Clinton and other Democrats, he would be rewarded.

 

[otjm]

Hillary is squarely responsible for the position she finds herself in. She’s not a victim, thats a fairy tale, its not a conspiracy thats a fairy tale. Its no one elses fault, thats a fairy tale. Hillary is responsible for the position she finds herself in and thats the bottom line. Most adults I know take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming their faults and error on others.

Most people do not get $675,000 for speaking to Goldman Sachs, either. If we are lucky, we get a straight answer.

Some people who get that kind of money think they put their pants on differently than the rest of us, and therefore mud shouldn’t stick to them.

 

[otjm]

If she is not criminally liable or if the FBI is not readying a recommendation of charges, then she is, indeed, a victim of wrong judgment without the facts and malicious gossip.

We are in no position to judge her, and even if we did have all the facts, we have been commanded by God not to judge. It’s that simple. We can judge an action, once we have full details of that action, but we can never judge a person, not even if we sit on a jury. In that case we judge the criminality of the action, but never the person. Moral Theology 101, and I teach Moral Theology 505. At least for this semester. I don’t normally teach it. I usually am confined to Christology classes. Just want to be clear on that and not misleading.

No, there is a third alternative, and that is that there are so many potential crimes and so many people to interview and re-interview, and all the leads that come from those interviews to be traced down that the questions asked previously is whether or not the FBI has sufficient staff to put it all together before the election.

Each violation of security laws is itself a criminal act. With 20 Top Secret emails, each being a criminal act, there is an exponential number of leads to trace. Some will trace pretty much through the same people; some will not, and each has the potential to produce more people to interview, which provides more leads…

Nobody here is judging her in terms of moral theology. It all has to do with her acts.

 

[otjm]

I’m not sure that Sean wouldn’t last in his job if he was using unreliable sources. Conservative pundits have remarkable survival skills as Bill O’Reilly was accused of sexual harassment (which he swore he would fight all the way, but then when it seemed his accuser had tapes, he suddenly settled). Rush Limbaugh has addiction issues and had Viagra upon returning from a foreign trip. Sean using questionable or unreliable sources would be a lesser offense than these issues.

And I am to assume that liberal pundits are cleaner than Caesar’s wife? Their personal sins are not the deciding issue in what I said - my point was that if a pundit finds their source unreliable, that source will find the phone not ringing, the luncheon appointments not made… There are a multitude of sources for a multitude of issues.

The pundit may be embarrassed by a source who gets “creative”; that source will become a non source.

Whether a pundit survives in the dog fight of the national spotlight due to moral issues is totally unrelated.

 

[otjm]

As long as his unreliable sources went against Clinton and other Democrats, he would be rewarded.

It has not been shown that his sources are unreliable. That will not be shown, at a minimum, until someone decides that “imminent” indictment is no longer “imminent”, and that remark is likely to be lost in ground chatter. If the FBI presents a case to the AG, the reliability of the source is at least partially (and significantly) shown.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Most people do not get $675,000 for speaking to Goldman Sachs, either. If we are lucky, we get a straight answer.

Some people who get that kind of money think they put their pants on differently than the rest of us, and therefore mud shouldn’t stick to them.

Her latest is great propaganda too…

politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-wall-street-218767

Liz might have to elaborate as I’m sure she has a deeper point to make.

thehill.com/policy/finance/overnights/268321-overnight-finance-republicans-wont-consider-obama-budget

 

[Lily_Bernans]

No, there is a third alternative, and that is that there are so many potential crimes and so many people to interview and re-interview, and all the leads that come from those interviews to be traced down that the questions asked previously is whether or not the FBI has sufficient staff to put it all together before the election.

Each violation of security laws is itself a criminal act. With 20 Top Secret emails, each being a criminal act, there is an exponential number of leads to trace. Some will trace pretty much through the same people; some will not, and each has the potential to produce more people to interview, which provides more leads…

Nobody here is judging her in terms of moral theology. It all has to do with her acts.

This thread is a tempest in a teapot. No one here has the knowledge or the authority to do anything except not vote for her.

Time will sort the rest out. I’m certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

I’m bothered more by the fact that Chelsea Clinton refused to speak to an elementary school child and answer a simple question he asked her. She said, “I don’t speak to the press, and unfortunately, that includes YOU.” This is a thirty-six year old mother of 1.5 children, with a $300,000/yr salary from the Clinton Foundation, or whatever it’s called, and two Master’s degrees and one PhD, from Oxford no less, and she can’t answer a question asked by a grade school child because he represents the press???

 

[Darryl1958]

Whatever this email controversy is, it is not a tempest in a teapot.
National security is important.

Integrity is important too, and private servers to cover one’s tracks demonstrates a complete disregard for both national security and a complete lack of personal integrity.

 

[Horton]

No, there is a third alternative, and that is that there are so many potential crimes and so many people to interview and re-interview, and all the leads that come from those interviews to be traced down that the questions asked previously is whether or not the FBI has sufficient staff to put it all together before the election.

Each violation of security laws is itself a criminal act. With 20 Top Secret emails, each being a criminal act, there is an exponential number of leads to trace. Some will trace pretty much through the same people; some will not, and each has the potential to produce more people to interview, which provides more leads…

Nobody here is judging her in terms of moral theology. It all has to do with her acts.

The fact that Hillary kept an unauthorized server in her home and used that server to receive, send, and forward emails pertaining to the business of the State Department in and of itself is a crime. She has admitted she has done this, there is no ambiguity here. She just feels she shouldn’t be held responsible for her behavior, that somehow she should get a pass. Unfortunately for us, there are so many in this country who have lost their compass and agree with her and actually support her for president.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Whatever this email controversy is, it is not a tempest in a teapot.
National security is important.

Integrity is important too, and private servers to cover one’s tracks demonstrates a complete disregard for both national security and a complete lack of personal integrity.

I meant our conversation is a tempest in a teapot since we have not seen the emails in question and are powerless to take any action other than not voting for Clinton, which few of us were going to do anyway. We don’t even have any proof that they involve national security other than taking some anonymous person’s word for it, and I’m not going to do that.

During Clinton’s tenure as SoS, she was allowed to use a private server and did not have to make a copy of what she sent through that server.

As I said, time will tell. It’s my bet that nothing comes of it, though nothing at all, either way, would not really surprise me. The government will do what it feels pressured to do, not what is right.

 

[Theo520]

Since Hillary is running for President, I think it is relevant to discuss the issue before the verdict is given. It bears on her fitness for the job.

You can’t find a source that confirms she was allowed to use a private server for all her Govt communication nor not keep official copies -** it’s complete rubbish to claim such**

Yea, Chelsea shouldn’t be campaigning for her mom if she won’t have anything to do with the press, even if they are 9yrs old.

I meant our conversation is a tempest in a teapot since we have not seen the emails in question and are powerless to take any action other than not voting for Clinton, which few of us were going to do anyway. We don’t even have any proof that they involve national security other than taking some anonymous person’s word for it, and I’m not going to do that.

During Clinton’s tenure as SoS, she was allowed to use a private server and did not have to make a copy of what she sent through that server.

As I said, time will tell. It’s my bet that nothing comes of it, though nothing at all, either way, would not really surprise me. The government will do what it feels pressured to do, not what is right.

 

[Horton]

Whatever this email controversy is, it is not a tempest in a teapot.
National security is important.

Integrity is important too, and private servers to cover one’s tracks demonstrates a complete disregard for both national security and a complete lack of personal integrity.

Integrity - doing the right thing even when no one is looking.

Hillary has demonstrated by her actions since the 70’s that she has no idea what the word integrity means.